You still do not understand the point about sport at all. The less barriers there to get into a sport i.e. the easier it is to do, the more likely a country is to produce Gold medalists in that sport. That was the point.

To illustrate - A very simply barrier to becoming a good skier is to live in a country without snow or mountains. If a big percentage of the population can ski on a frequent basis, due to lots of snow and hills, then you get more good people discovering their talent, just like with the increased ownership and usage of cameras since digital, means you will find more good photographers overall [and more bad]. The perecentage of talented people may never change but the no.s actually doing so will. Increase the funding to support and coach potential athletes and again it's easier for them to train well. Make it even easier, fund them directly so they do not have to fit training in and around a day job and again you will see an increase in performance by expending less effort. In fact training less, can improve many people's performance as overtraining is a very common problem.

Things got easier for a friend of mine in an unusual way. He had an injury which prevented him working [broken wrist] at the day job and so he was able to rest and recover whilst still training on a stationary bike and he then became UK champion for the first time 6 weeks after his injury, beating his opponents by a much bigger margin than he ever had previously. He worked less hard and did better, he said he was far less tired as a result of not doing the day job. He never went back to working outside cycling again.

Apples and oranges. Difficulty and tedium are not the same thing. Pull down barriers for greater entry into something... fine. But to actually learn how to do something well, it takes work and patience. Obviously if you're going to learn how to ski, snow helps. But does that mean we should begin to teach kids math with calculators instead of learning their times tables? The barrier to entry into photography was not lowered with digital cameras that much anyway. Instamatics had been around for a long time, and the "Program" function was nothing new. Nor were 1-hour photo kiosks. It's just that film aids in the learning process because you have far fewer distractions to deal with. I doubt the reason schools across the country still use film is because they have old stock lying around. That's pretty hilarious.

But enough said... I can tell you have that sort of personality that needs to have the last say. So go ahead, scratch that itch. But just remember what your mama taught you... breathe deep and count to three before saying anything. And listen to that person who keeps reminding people on this thread to be civil. Oh, wait a minute... that's <gasp!> you!

Never have. I was a student for a number of years. Actually, still am...

As for my little tale, the events depicted in this story are for entertainment purposes only. Any similarity to any person living or dead -- or any photography class, for that matter -- is purely coincidental.

What a surprise, jjj, that you've been embroiled in controversy here before. Weird.

Of course the oldest trick in the book is to accuse someone of twisting your words when that person doesn't agree with you. All someone has to do is re-read our posts... it's all right there. If someone’s life is actually that boring.

Be that as it may, apparently you can't enter into a debate without stumbling into little emoticon-filled hissy fits, and your tantrums are clouding your judgment. Alas..

My only point about "harder is better" was simply to argue the benefits of actually having to learn about basic photographic skills before getting so obsessed with what you do after the shot. It’s all about the context. The fewer impediments to that organic process, the better, because then the hard work of learning "visual awareness" can begin. And yes, of course you can check lighting, etc., with digital, but the point RSL has been making (I think it was RSL) is that doing this with digital isn't nearly as organic because there are so many more things standing between you and the actual image (as you yourself pointed out in one of your previous posts) than there ever was with film.

Take two inexperienced students of photography at some photography school and hand them each a box, one with a Pentax K10d and kit lens, the other with a Pentax LX and kit lens, and tell them that when their cameras are ready, to meet you outside for the first lesson. But then, what would the K-1000 person do for a few hours while the K10d person pulled everything out of the box and, after dealing with temporary vertigo, began the process of opening the 100-page manual to see where to begin, learn how to charge the battery, what cables went to what and where, etc., etc., etc. I guess go out and start shooting. Let’s assume the LX person has figured out how to turn the camera on, and after you've shown him where the aperture ring on the lens and shutter speed dial on the top deck are, you tell him to look through the viewfinder so that he can see how to over- or under-expose a shot. Of course, if we really wanted to start at the beginning, we'd have him shoot with no battery at all, but then, that isn't possible with the K10d. <sigh>

So let’s just skip to the actual lessons. Now, because this is about photography, which presumably involves learning how to take pictures, we have to tell the K10d person to switch the camera to "M." And turn the auto-focus off. And turn Raw capture on. And adjust white balance… —where’s that gray card anyway? But of course, to do that requires he’s learned about how the menus work. Oh bother...

Half an our later, K10d guy is finally ready. Well hang it all, alright, so we also have to teach him how to work the dials to adjust f/stop and shutter speed. But wait a minute... how will he know if the exposure is correct? So we tell him to look inside the viewfinder and we take him through a short course on how to interpret all the data flashing in front of his eyes. But of course, while we're doing this, LX guy is almost done with a roll of black and white, all the while adjusting his aperture and shutter dial and learning how that relates to exposure. And while he’s shooting, each time with a slightly different exposure setting, and because he’s not a Luddite, he records his settings into in his little pocket recorder stashed in his shirt pocket so that he doesn’t have to take his eyes off his work. And he goes through three rolls, all the while learning about composition, different lighting conditions, depth-of-field, etc.

Meanwhile, K10d guy has gotten his gray card, adjusted his white balance, and now he starts to shoot. But hold on… should we use a histogram, since that has its limitations? And how do you interpret the histogram? Just tell the student to ETTR? Well, anyway, after another short lesson in that, K10d guy starts to shoot, and wonder of wonders(!) because of modern technology, he pops off 500 shots in less than an hour! But dang it, now his battery is running low, so he’s going to have to take a break while it re-charges and in the meantime, he can peruse the Russian-novel length manual and… oh, you’ve got to be kidding? Now he has to learn how to use the photo-processing software that came with the camera?! Luckily, the instructor has Lightroom, which k10d guy installs illegally on his desktop, and after downloading the 500 RAW shots – another frustratingly long chunk of time – and then doing software installation, the instruction begins on how to use Lightroom. But talk about information overload! K10d guy’s brain is about to explode. My goodness, he never knew there were so many technical details! Can’t he just learn about the basics first, before going on to another lesson in software? After all, he hasn’t even had the chance to really see his pictures, except on a 3” digital screen, which hardly does it justice, and he wants to see what they look like printed out. The instructor gently placates k10d guy and assures him that all this technical stuff is for his benefit and convenience, and when he finally learns what he should, he promises k10d he’ll actually learn about how to do photography. So the Lightroom tutorial begins.

Back in the darkroom, LX guy has watched his instructor process and develop the film (oh, how he hates all those stinky chemicals. But that’s okay, since they’re listening to some great jazz and talking about the instructor’s photography experience) and now, an hour or so later, they’re holding the first roll of photos in their hands!

Hey, k10d guy says, I want to hold the pictures in my hands, too! Instructor tells him to settle down. That will come when they connect to the printer—assuming they have the right driver installed. In the meantime, patience, k10d guy. Patience. For now, look at all the ways you can manipulate your image… an infinite number of ways, in fact! But, k10d guy thinks to himself, I don’t want to manipulate the image… I just want to see what the image actually looked like.

All the while, LX guy and other instructor continue to talk about composition, lighting, DOF, shooting techniques, and while K10d guy was learning just how mechanical photography is, K-1000 guy was learning how fun photography could be. In the end, it seems, k10d guy just became enamored with all the fun ways he could doctor up his shot, while k-1000 guy had learned about the decisive moment and the patience and work involved in learning how to draw a picture with light… wait a minute, the student thought to himself. Isn’t that what photography actually means?

Months later, k10d guy was no longer k10d guy because he was no longer satisfied with the measly 10mp’s the camera could bring and just had, had, had to get the k20d 14mp behemoth. So he became k20d guy. But then the K-7 came along…

Meanwhile, k1000 guy was out shooting and learning more about actual photography. Oh yes, he did buy a Canon G10 for that instant gratification he craved from time to time, and he purchased a slide scanner so that he could email his chrome shots to friends, but whenever he had the itch to go out and shoot, he just grabbed his camera and went out the door. Meanwhile, k-7 guy (yes, he had succumbed—and taken out a second mortgage) was busy sitting in front of his computer screen screaming invective at some “old fogey” who dared to question his new lifestyle of mechanical photography and instant gratification and hours upon hours in a dark room (ironic, isn’t it?) sitting in front of a pixel screen making the skies just a little bluer, and the grass just a little greener, and… and… and…

Rob C - just learn how your sensor needs to be exposed, for how you like your image and you're done.It may be a reading off palm of hand and +1 stop or whatever. That's what I always did with slide, just find your own tweak for digital and your all set.

Both my daughter and son-in-law are teachers. They have two children. Both children go to private schools at expense almost too great for the parents to bear. This is because, as professionals and aware, they do not consider the available state offerings are suitable. The parents also mark examination papers and at the start of each season there is a meeting to establish marking levels. These tell their own tale, as does the supply of students to universities where the latter have to start teaching many incomers what they should have already learned in school...

Yes, it exists and is getting more serious every year.

I am currently reading Atlas Shrugged, from an electronic notebook, in periods of about two hours - battery life - as I sit having lunch in a local bar. The stench of political corruption described therein, lo those many years ago, is ever more real as the days move past, reflected ever so clearly in the need my family faces and the reasons for that need existing. I recommend that book. I recommend reading it and watching the news broadcasts with a more acute attention.

On dumbing down.Both my daughter and son-in-law are teachers. They have two children. Both children go to private schools at expense almost too great for the parents to bear. This is because, as professionals and aware, they do not consider the available state offerings are suitable. The parents also mark examination papers and at the start of each season there is a meeting to establish marking levels. These tell their own tale, as does the supply of students to universities where the latter have to start teaching many incomers what they should have already learned in school...Rob C

So, Rob, what happens when the kiddies graduate from the private school and encounter all those drunken slackers from public school at the university?

So, Rob, what happens when the kiddies graduate from the private school and encounter all those drunken slackers from public school at the university?

Form their own group, I suppose, I hope. As the two parents met at the same university, I hope the same ability to select holds sway for another couple of generations, at least. But, sadly, I doubt it.

Why does going to hell in a rickshaw come to mind? Oh, I remember: it´s my current world view. Didn´t use to be.

Form their own group, I suppose, I hope. As the two parents met at the same university, I hope the same ability to select holds sway for another couple of generations, at least. But, sadly, I doubt it.Why does going to hell in a rickshaw come to mind? Oh, I remember: it´s my current world view. Didn´t use to be.Rob C

I was teasing slightly. Good thing they have the years they have with a quality education, so when they do get to college, they'll be better equipped to succeed.

Both my daughter and son-in-law are teachers. They have two children. Both children go to private schools at expense almost too great for the parents to bear. This is because, as professionals and aware, they do not consider the available state offerings are suitable. The parents also mark examination papers and at the start of each season there is a meeting to establish marking levels. These tell their own tale, as does the supply of students to universities where the latter have to start teaching many incomers what they should have already learned in school...

Yes, it exists and is getting more serious every year.

I am currently reading Atlas Shrugged, from an electronic notebook, in periods of about two hours - battery life - as I sit having lunch in a local bar. The stench of political corruption described therein, lo those many years ago, is ever more real as the days move past, reflected ever so clearly in the need my family faces and the reasons for that need existing. I recommend that book. I recommend reading it and watching the news broadcasts with a more acute attention.

Rob C

Rob,

As I think I was the first person to use the phrase 'dumbed down' in post 88, I would just like to point out that I used it purely in regard to digital photography. Saying that I did not think digital had dumbed down photography. I quite agree that many other areas of life have been 'dumbed down'.

The point that I, and possibly JJJ are making, is that digital has removed some of the barriers to getting people to the point where they can produce a finished picture of reasonable quality. If those people want togo on to become accomplished photographers then they will quite quickly realise that they need to apply themselves to learning the craft. The techno mumbo-jumbo we are all compelled to learn in order toget an image on a piece of paper just gets in the way of making images. A good image maker will see an image before him and pre-visualise how he wants it to look in the final form. Digital is gradually removing thebarriers to getting to that state. The technical knowledge needed means that many potentially talented image makers are deterred from using photography as a medium. This leaves much of photography in the handsof photographers with lots of technical knowledge, but very little eye for how to make a good image.

I should add that I consider myself technically quite competent, and visually just competent! I do also know that to move my work on, I need to improve both my vision and use of technical skills. Perhaps one dayI will be a true visual artist!

I was teasing slightly. Good thing they have the years they have with a quality education, so when they do get to college, they'll be better equipped to succeed.

Off topic: Interestingly, in the UK at least, studies have shown that whilst kids from private schools achieve better grades at school, when they get to University they don't do as well as the kids from the state schools. Seems many have become one-trick ponies - developing as part of a group that is trained to do well at passing exams - whilst at university thinking creatively as an individual and being self-reliant are two of the key ingredients to success (plus hard work of course!) It's here where the kids from the state schools, who have had to put up with overcrowded classrooms, poor equipment, and a generally tougher learning environment, seem to have an advantage.

Off topic: Interestingly, in the UK at least, studies have shown that whilst kids from private schools achieve better grades at school, when they get to University they don't do as well as the kids from the state schools. Seems many have become one-trick ponies - developing as part of a group that is trained to do well at passing exams - whilst at university thinking creatively as an individual and being self-reliant are two of the key ingredients to success (plus hard work of course!) It's here where the kids from the state schools, who have had to put up with overcrowded classrooms, poor equipment, and a generally tougher learning environment, seem to have an advantage.

The US is waaaaaaaay too large to make generalizations about "public schools" and "private schools" that are meaningful.

The US is waaaaaaaay too large to make generalizations about "public schools" and "private schools" that are meaningful.

1) Er...that's why I didn't. 2) Your statement is a generalization - which is kind of ironic. 3) As far as the UK was concerned, it certainly wasn't a generalization, it was the finding of peer-reviewed scientific study. I'd imagine educational researchers could (maybe even have) done similar studies in the US. After all, the size of the country doesn't stop all sorts of other reserach - medical, political, social etc. - taking place, does it?

Off topic: Interestingly, in the UK at least, studies have shown that whilst kids from private schools achieve better grades at school, when they get to University they don't do as well as the kids from the state schools. Seems many have become one-trick ponies - developing as part of a group that is trained to do well at passing exams - whilst at university thinking creatively as an individual and being self-reliant are two of the key ingredients to success (plus hard work of course!) It's here where the kids from the state schools, who have had to put up with overcrowded classrooms, poor equipment, and a generally tougher learning environment, seem to have an advantage.

I can actually believe this, which if true says that simple deductions or projections aren't to be trusted. Which raises two questions for me. One, could the study be biased by a hidden agenda somewhere, and two, if not and the study proves valid, then do we have a study that shows what value we're getting from private schools, on average? Many of us here in photoland seem to be in a private school business of one sort or another.

1) Er...that's why I didn't. 2) Your statement is a generalization - which is kind of ironic. 3) As far as the UK was concerned, it certainly wasn't a generalization, it was the finding of peer-reviewed scientific study. I'd imagine educational researchers could (maybe even have) done similar studies in the US. After all, the size of the country doesn't stop all sorts of other reserach - medical, political, social etc. - taking place, does it?

I'm not challenging you or disputing what you are saying about the research in the UK.

Of course there is "research" in the US ... but I'm just commenting that no nationwide study would ever categorize the US educational system into those two buckets ... and if one did, it would be meaningless.

I'm not challenging you or disputing what you are saying about the research in the UK.

Of course there is "research" in the US ... but I'm just commenting that no nationwide study would ever categorize the US educational system into those two buckets ... and if one did, it would be meaningless.

We all have opinions on subjects, but good peer-reviewed and accredited research (or, as you put it for some reason, "research") tries to establish a neutral position from which to collate information, analyse it, and make qualified statements about it. From what you say, if a similar study was undertaken in the US, and the results didn't agree with your personal opinion, then they would be meaningless. How does that work exactly?

We all have opinions on subjects, but good peer-reviewed and accredited research (or, as you put it for some reason, "research") tries to establish a neutral position from which to collate information, analyse it, and make qualified statements about it. From what you say, if a similar study was undertaken in the US, and the results didn't agree with your personal opinion, then they would be meaningless. How does that work exactly?

You refer to UK public schools as "state schools", which suggests that there is perhaps some set of national standards/policies/whatnot that they generally must adhere to, for better or for worse. In the U.S. there is no such national set of standards. Most of the 50 states that make up the United States do not even have state-level standards of any substance whatever (Texas and California are notable exceptions, at least for textbook purchasing.) "Public schools" in the U.S. are generally contolled by local (i.e., city- or town-level) school boards. Some do a good job and some do a miserable job. The same is true of private schools, which range in quality almost as much as the public schools.

Does this also describe the situation in the U.K.? If not, then it seems reasonable to suppose that any such binary research results in the U.S. would provide a very inaccurate description of reality in most parts of our country.

You refer to UK public schools as "state schools", which suggests that there is perhaps some set of national standards/policies/whatnot that they generally must adhere to, for better or for worse. In the U.S. there is no such national set of standards. Most of the 50 states that make up the United States do not even have state-level standards of any substance whatever (Texas and California are notable exceptions, at least for textbook purchasing.) "Public schools" in the U.S. are generally contolled by local (i.e., city- or town-level) school boards. Some do a good job and some do a miserable job. The same is true of private schools, which range in quality almost as much as the public schools.

Does this also describe the situation in the U.K.?

What? A variety of educational institutes providing a range of educational experiences to a diverse population - yup, that's pretty much my experience of the UK educational system. Hey, you're just like us!

Quote

If not, then it seems reasonable to suppose that any such binary research results in the U.S. would provide a very inaccurate description of reality in most parts of our country.

Again, opinion - which of course there is nothing wrong with, just so long as you acknowledge it as such. Maybe someone will do similar research in the US (maybe they already have) - you never know, it might save a lot of parents a lot of money. But then again, as a friend of mine who teaches at a private school points out, (perceived) academic excellence is only one reason amongst many that people choose to send their children to these institutions.